Court Watch: Supreme Court Guts Fourth Amendment

Thursday, 19 May 2011

First the Supreme Court decided that when the authors of the First
Amendment to the Constitution sought to prohibit Congress from abridging
people's freedom of speech, they really meant that Congress couldn't
prohibit corporations' freedom to spend money (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission). Then they ruled that the Second
Amendment, which clearly says that the federal government can't
keep states from creating armed militias, really means that
states can't prohibit the practically unrestricted proliferation
of deadly weapons to almost any citizen (McDonald v. Chicago).
Now, in a ruling that hasn't yet made the splash of the previous two,
the Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protection against
unreasonable search and seizure and the necessity of first obtaining a
warrant no longer applies.

In an astounding 8-1 ruling on Monday, Kentucky v. King, the
Supreme Court declared open season on all suspects of any crime for
which tangible evidence might be hidden inside the suspect's place of
residence. They upheld the actions of police officers in Lexington, KY,
who kicked down an apartment door, without first obtaining a warrant,
because they believed that a suspect inside might be destroying
evidence. The fact that the suspect wasn't destroying evidence, and in
fact wasn't even in the apartment whose door they kicked in, didn't stop
the police from arresting those inside the apartment for smoking
marijuana and possessing other drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Court
ruling gives carte blanche to police officers throughout the country to
forego getting search warrants to enter homes if they believe it's
possible that someone inside might be destroying evidence. Since it's
almost always possible that someone inside might be destroying
evidence at any given time, obtaining a search warrant is now no longer
necessary. Welcome to the police state.